Labor Law – Page 7 – New York Appellate Digest

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the court should not have awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant in this Labor Law 740 action. Plaintiff had alleged ongoing sterility problems in defendant’s operating room. Plaintiff lost the trial, in which she claimed she had been wrongfully terminated because of her complaints. The Second Department found that her claims were not without basis and, therefore, the award of attorney’s fees to defendant was an abuse of discretion:

Labor Law § 740(6) provides that a court, in its discretion, may award an employer attorneys’ fees and costs if it determines that the employee’s action is ” without basis in law or in fact'” … . Here, the trial record included testimonial and documentary evidence of the plaintiff’s numerous complaints about ongoing sterility problems in the operating room, which problems arguably constituted a violation of applicable regulations and posed a present, substantial, and specific danger to patient health. The plaintiff and other witnesses testified that these issues arose hundreds of times over the relevant time period and were not seriously addressed until after the plaintiff finally complained to her supervisor’s supervisor. The plaintiff’s annual performance evaluations demonstrate that she met or exceeded expectations throughout her tenure as a nurse manager and, despite identifying areas for improvement, did not indicate a risk of dismissal until after she complained to upper management. While ultimately unpersuasive in light of the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff’s action “cannot reasonably be characterized as being without basis in law or in fact'” … . The Supreme Court therefore improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Law § 740(6). Berde v North Shore- Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03955, Second Dept 6-6-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FEES, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT))/WRONGFUL TERMINATION (LABOR LAW 740, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT))

June 6, 2018

Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law, Privilege, Public Health Law

PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff in this whistleblower action was entitled to discover medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Public Health Law (PHL). Plaintiff alleged he was fired, in violation Labor Law 740, in retaliation for complaining that defendant’s employees procured organs without performing tests and from people who still showed signs of life:

The records concerning these four individuals are material and necessary to plaintiff’s claim (see CPLR 3101[a]). To prevail on a claim for retaliatory termination in violation of Labor Law § 740(2), plaintiff must prove that he was fired because he objected to or threatened to disclose a practice that was in violation of a law or regulation … . The subject medical records will allegedly show that defendant pressured doctors to declare people dead in violation of regulations regarding the making of such determinations … .

… [B]ecause the subject disclosure would be made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pursuant to a qualified protective order, it is authorized under HIPAA… .

… PHL § 4351(8) renders defendant’s documents subject to the protections of the physician-patient privilege set forth at CPLR 4504. This privilege is personal to the patient and is not terminated by death … . It has not been expressly or implicitly waived in this case by the donors’ next of kin … . However, plaintiff demonstrated that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to his claim and that “the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege and permitting discovery of the records with all identifying patient information appropriately redacted to protect patient confidentiality” … . Allowing disclosure under these circumstances is consistent with the public policy underlying the whistleblower statute, i.e., to encourage employees to report hazards to supervisors and the public … . McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 03820, First Dept 5-29-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (WHISTLEBLOWERS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/HIPAA (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))

May 29, 2018

Labor Law, Unemployment Insurance

CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined that the New York City Department of Education had demonstrated it had provided claimant, a substitute teacher, with reasonable assurance she would continue to be employed in the following school year. Her application for unemployment insurance benefits over the summer should, therefore, have been denied:

… [W]e find that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Initially, in reaching its conclusion, the Board essentially imposed a requirement that a reasonable assurance be a guarantee of earnings during the following school year, an interpretation that finds no support in the statute or case law. … Here, the 153 assignments that claimant obtained directly through school administrators during the 2015-2016 school year exceeded the 145 needed to satisfy the 90% threshold and should have been counted in determining whether she received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

In addition to the June 2016 letter setting forth the basic terms of claimant’s continued employment during the 2016-2017 school year, the NYCDOE’s witness testified that no changes were anticipated with respect to the budget, salary or number of students and paraprofessionals needed for the upcoming school year. He further stated that 14% of jobs go unfilled, providing ample opportunity for substitutes to find openings. In view of the foregoing, the record establishes that the NYCDOE provided claimant a reasonable assurance of continued employment under Labor Law § 590 (11), thereby precluding her from receiving benefits … . Matter of Enman (New York City Dept. of Educ.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 03416, Third Dept 5-10-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS, CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

May 10, 2018

Employment Law, Labor Law

PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff physician’s complaint alleging he was terminated in retaliation for his disagreement with defendant hospital corporation’s policy concerning the testing of residential drinking water for patients diagnosed with Legionnaire’s disease stated a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law 741:

[Plaintiff] disagrees with the public position taken by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that the bacteria was found only in cooling towers and not in residential drinking water, and reasonably believes that the practice of not testing the residential drinking water of the patients constituted “improper quality of patient care.

Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the notice requirement set forth in Labor Law § 741(3). Under that provision, an employee may not bring an action “unless the employee has brought the improper quality of patient care to the attention of a supervisor and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct such activity, policy or practice”… . Although the statutory language expressly contemplates an affirmative act of objection to a policy or practice, strict compliance with the requirement here “would not serve the purpose of the statute” … . In view of the allegations that plaintiff’s supervisors had directed him to stop testing residential drinking water of the patients, and to not associate himself with the hospital if he insisted on continuing to do so, any express objections to the practice or policy would have been futile. Further, the fact that plaintiff insisted on testing the water despite directives to stop shows that his supervisors were aware, and therefore had notice, of his objection. Skelly v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03329, First Dept 5-8-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PATIENT CARE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/PATIENT CARE (LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW 741 (PATIENT CARE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/RETALIATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/DRINKING WATER (LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE, PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))/LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE (PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT))

May 8, 2018

Labor Law, Municipal Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff firefighter’s motion for summary judgment in this General Municipal Law 205-a, Labor Law 27-a slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he fell because of a gap in a grate at the Homeport Pier. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact about whether the gap was the result of defendant’s (the city’s) negligence:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides a right of action for firefighters who are injured “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence” of a defendant “in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” To make out a valid claim under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintiff must ” [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter'” … .

… [T]he only statute, ordinance, or rule identified by the plaintiff which could support the imposition of liability pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a under the facts of this case was Labor Law § 27-a …. Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) provides that every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that are “free from recognized hazards” that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This statute may serve as a predicate for a cause of action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that the gap in the grates was a result of negligence by the City. His submissions included evidence that (1) the Homeport Pier was inspected regularly, (2) gaps in the grates were sometimes caused by expansion and contraction of the metal and shifting due to vehicles driving over them, (3) any gaps over an inch were rectified when discovered during regular inspections, and (4) the Homeport Pier and the grates were inspected within two days prior to the plaintiff’s accident. Shea v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03164, Second Dept 5-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

May 2, 2018

Employment Law, Labor Law, Municipal Law

FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff probationary firefighter’s death from dehydration during fire department training (functional skills training or FST) was not the type of occupational injury which is actionable under General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a:

Decedent … , a probationary firefighter, passed away due to dehydration while performing the Fire Academy’s physically demanding Functional Skills Training (FST) exercise course, which was designed to simulate actual firefighting tasks under a controlled environment.

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover under GML § 205-a, as the injuries decedent sustained were not the type of occupational injury that Labor Law § 27-a was designed to protect, but rather, arose from risks unique to firefighting work … . While the performance of the FST course was part of training, and not part of firefighting per se, the ability to perform it efficiently was a necessary and important part of the job, as it ensures that a firefighter could effectively perform the tasks during an actual fire. The risks of dehydration and other physiological conditions experienced during FST training are the same as those inherent in actual firefighting. Given the special dangers firefighters face, and their responsibility to protect the public, judgments as to how they should be trained are better left for the FDNY supervisors and not second-guessed by the Department of Labor. Sears v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02430, First Dept 4-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, LABOR LAW, FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (MUNICIPAL LAW, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW , FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT))

April 10, 2018

Labor Law, Unemployment Insurance

CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the appeal board, determined claimant was not entitled to the presumption of an employee-employer relationship afforded by Labor Law 511, which specifically applies to the performing arts. Claimant is a “caller” paid to participate in radio call-in shows to promote the shows. The caller need have no artistic skill or talent. Therefore the Labor Law 511 presumption did not apply:

In this case, as there is no dispute that the callers' services did not require artistic or technical skill or talent, we find that the statutory presumption for an employee in the performing arts has not been established. As such, we find that the Board's interpretation of the statute was erroneous and its decision must be reversed. Additionally, we note that only general information about the endeavors of the radio stations — which are not deemed to be the employers of the callers — was provided, which was insufficient to support the Board's finding that such endeavors required an artistic or technical skill or talent to produce. Inasmuch as the Board did not address whether United [the employer] exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant and those similarly situated to establish an employer-employee relationship, we remit the matter for the Board's consideration. Matter of Minefee (United Stas. Radio Networks, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 00210, Third Dept 1-11-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CALLERS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/PERFORMING ARTISTS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, CALLERS, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))/CALLERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 511 WHICH IS AFFORDED TO PERFORMING ARTISTS, CLAIMANT IS PAID TO PROMOTE CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS BY CALLING DURING THE SHOWS, AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES NO ARTISTIC TALENT (THIRD DEPT))

January 11, 2018

Arbitration, Employment Law, Labor Law

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THIS EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS INVOLVED, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING HIS CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to consideration whether compliance with the agreement to arbitrate would, because of the costs involved, effectively prohibit plaintiff from pursing his claim alleging untimely payment of wages:

… [T]he court erred in failing to address plaintiff’s contention that, because of his financial circumstances, requiring him to arbitrate, and to do so in Florida, would preclude him from pursuing his claims (Matter of Brady v Williams Capital Group, L.P., 14 NY3d 459 [2010]). Acknowledging the “strong state policy favoring arbitration [] and the equally strong policy requiring the invalidation of such agreements when they contain terms that could preclude a litigant from vindicating his/her statutory rights in the arbitral forum” … , the Court of Appeals in Brady held, as here relevant, that,

“in this context, the issue of a litigant’s financial ability [to arbitrate] is to be resolved on a case-by-case basis and that the inquiry should at minimum consider the following questions: (1) whether the litigant can pay the arbitration fees and costs; (2) what is the expected cost differential between arbitration and litigation in court; and (3) whether the cost differential is so substantial as to deter the bringing of claims in the arbitral forum. Although a full hearing is not required in all situations, there should be a written record of the findings pertaining to a litigant’s financial ability” … .

Applying the foregoing standard, we hold that plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that the fee sharing and venue provisions in the arbitration agreement have the effect of precluding him from pursuing his statutory wage claim in arbitration …

… While Brady did not expressly address this issue, by extension of its logic, the risk of plaintiff having to pay defendant’s attorneys’ fees, if it prevails, may be taken into account in considering whether the total costs associated with arbitration preclude plaintiff from pursuing his claim in the arbitral forum. Adams v Kent Sec. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 09274, First Dept 12-28-17

December 28, 2017

Education-School Law, Labor Law, Unemployment Insurance

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a substitute teacher had not been given reasonable assurance of employment following the summer break and should not have been denied unemployment benefits on that ground:

This Court has well-established precedent interpreting the identical phrase in Labor Law § 590 (10), “reasonable assurance,” regarding two successive academic years or terms to require “a representation by the employer” as to future employment . This representation often takes the form of a letter from an employer assuring a per diem substitute teacher of future employment opportunities … .

Here, it is uncontested that the employer never sent any letter to claimant or provided him with any other form of notice that made a representation regarding claimant’s employment after the recess. Matter of Papapietro (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 08596, Third Dept 12-7-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TEACHERS, LABOR LAW, SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT))/TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT))/E

December 7, 2017

Contract Law, Employment Law, Labor Law

LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff, an associate in defendant law firm, was entitled to 5% of the $5 million fee collected by the law firm in an action on behalf of a client brought in by the associate. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under the Labor Law 190 cause of action, as well as under the breach of contract cause of action. The Fourth Department determined the verdict on the Labor Law 190 cause of action should have been set aside because, under the law described in the jury instructions, the jury should have found the payment to be “incentive compensation” which is excluded from the type of pay covered by the Labor Law:

Applying the facts to the law as stated in the jury charge, the evidence establishes that the collections bonus was “incentive compensation” because it was based on more than just plaintiff’s performance. Among other things, the matter took considerable effort from other attorneys, some of whom billed far more hours on the matter than plaintiff, and a partner conducted international arbitration and filed enforcement proceedings to secure a settlement collectible by the client. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, inasmuch as the collections bonus was calculated as a percentage of the fee in the matter and “the fee collected” by defendant was based on the abovementioned factors outside of plaintiff’s control, the jury could not have rationally concluded that the collections bonus was anything other than “incentive compensation” excluded from protection under Labor Law § 193 (1). …

… [T]he evidence adduced by plaintiff established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in which at least one of defendant’s partners promised to pay plaintiff a bonus consisting of 5% of the fee collections from any client generated by plaintiff if such fees exceeded $100,000, that plaintiff subsequently performed under the agreement by generating the client, and that defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the collections bonus, thereby causing plaintiff to incur damages … . Doolittle v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 08126, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (INCENTIVE COMPENSATION, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))

November 17, 2017